The article deals with some controversial issues of the Imperial, Soviet and post-Soviet modernizations: periodization, the role of government, management style, reform strategy, the role of cultural traditions, similarities and differences, the continuity, the path dependence. According to the author, a strong state and competent dirigisme has served as the engine of modernization and were supported by the people. The majority of the population preferred the authoritarian style of government in a paternalistic version. Managing the process of modernization of the state did not mean that the society was the only object of dirigisme. Peaceful mass resistance, as the protest with the weapon in his hands, could block reform if they did not have enough support among wide layers of the population. The author argues against the demonization of the authoritarian management style and exaggeration of advantages of democratic style. The author criticizes the idea on the pendulum, the inverted nature of the Russian modernization and on the failure of Imperial and Soviet models of reform. The author argues that the view according to which Soviet modernization was a continuation of Imperial modernization by goals, resources, outcomes, prerequisites; both have an endogenous character. Modernization theory has not lost relevance in relation to Russia of the18th-20th centuries. The demand for new approaches exists; new conceptions are offered, but they not yet constitute a serious competition for the theory of modernization.
|Translated title of the contribution||ARGUMENTATIVE ISSUES OF IMPERIAL, SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET MODERNIZATIONS|
|Number of pages||11|
|Journal||Ural'skij Istoriceskij Vestnik|
|Issue number||4 (57)|
|State||Published - 2017|